Hmm. That's an interesting claim, I suppose. Of course it all depends on how you define racism and what context you're going to discuss it in but...

Republican Rep. Joe Wilson? Racist, because he shouted "You lie!" at the first black president.

Hmmm. No. Joe Wilson's connections to racist organizations make it pretty clear he's a racist. If I want to be flip--and when do I not?--I could say that his membership in the South Carolina Republican party is a pretty good indicator of racism. His shouting of "You lie" didn't make him a racist. One could argue that Wilson's racism fueled the outburst, or was one of many causes for the shout, but not the other way around. You've got the causation mixed up. What's next?

Health care protesters, affirmative action supporters? Racist.

Again with the causation problem. Opposing healthcare reform doesn't make one a racist. Doing so with a sign with racist slogans on it makes you a racist. And I really like how the AP writer connects images like the Confederate battle flag with the demonstrably false notion that affirmative action is reverse-racism. Nice work, bucko. How are you going to top that one?

And Barack Obama? He's the "Racist in Chief," wrote a leader of the recent conservative protest in Washington.

Point one--there's no proof yet that everyone is racist, but even if there were...point two is still stupid, because it means that everyone is a racist. Hatred based on skin color or ethnicity doesn't cancel out even if everyone on all sides has it. We're not reducing fractions here. We're talking about the way human beings interact with each other in society. Or rather, I'm talking about it in this post. The AP writer who put together this piece is talking about something completely different.

I could go on, but what's the point? When you start an article this way, you've poisoned the discourse that follows. It's beyond retrieval. Stop trying to make everything seem equal, and for crying out loud, learn the difference between cause and freaking effect.